Margaret Court, the most successful female grand-slam singles player in the history of the sport and the mother of the modern game, is facing the embarrassment of a demonstration against her powerful opposition to “gay marriage” being staged at the Australian Open next week on the court named in her honour.Outrage has been stirred by the views of Court, the senior pastor at the Victory Life Centre in Perth, Western Australia, who has spoken out in consistent opposition to extending the rights of gay people in her native land.A “Rainbow Flags Over Margaret Court Arena” campaign is gathering support on Facebook, and Tennis Australia officials will meet today to discuss how to deal with prospective rallies inside the grounds.The third show court at Melbourne Park was named almost a decade ago after the player who won 24 grand-slam singles titles and is one of only three to have collected singles, women’s doubles and mixed doubles titles at the same tournament. Ironically, another is Martina Navratilova, the most prominent of the sport’s lesbian champions, who has been severely critical of her comments.Though Court, 69, has since insisted that much of what she said has been taken out of context, in an article on the enhancement of gay rights in Australia she was quoted as saying: “Politically correct education has masterfully escorted homosexuality from behind closed doors into the community openly and now is aggressively demanding marriage rights that are not theirs to take. There is no reason to put forward alternative, unhealthy, unnatural unions as some form of substitute.”Court has been forced to defend herself against suggestions that she “hates” gay people. Responding in The New York Times, she said: “I think it’s very sad because they [her critics] have taken it in the wrong way. I make a stand for both my biblical side, and what I believe. It’s a choice, and I believe there are young people today who need to know it’s a choice.“I think people have planted ‘hate’ things, which saddens me. I help anybody, whatever their background. I’m there to help them, to change their lives. I was told one of the tennis girls said, ‘Why do I hate homosexual people?’ I don’t hate homosexual people. That’s been put out there and I think that’s very wrong.”Navratilova’s response was unequivocal. A leading advocate for gay rights since she “came out” 30 years ago, the three-time Australian Open champion said: “It seems to me that a lot of people have evolved, but unfortunately, Margaret Court has not. Her myopic view is truly frightening, as well as damaging to the thousands of children already living in same-gender families.”When he has chaired previous discussions on security at the Open, Craig Tiley, the tournament director, has been concerned about the prospect of potential scuffles inside the grounds between different ethnic groups, especially Melbourne’s large Serbian and Croatian communities. This is something very different.“Margaret Court has won more grand-slam titles than any other player and has been honoured for her achievements in tennis,” he said yesterday. “She is a legend of the sport. We respect that her playing career is second to none. But her personal views are her own and are not shared by Tennis Australia.“Like the WTA Tour, we believed that everyone should be treated equally and fairly. This is a fundamental right and principle. Anyone advocating otherwise is advocating against fundamental and essential rights. And TA does not support any view that contravenes those basic human rights.”On the prospect of a “rainbow” protest against Court on Margaret Court Arena, Tiley said: “We will be having our usual security review as the tournament nears and obviously this is something we are aware of and will need to prepare for

I got a link to that article via Bleacher Report, who clearly dont like Andy. They always have headlines with very provocative = negative titles and very little objectivety.Always wise to read the original article to get the true facts, if we can ever believe anything printed in the media!

Emilio Sánchez, the Spaniard to whose academy Judy Murray took a “boy who barely looked at you and was scared to come to a strange country” in 2002, wrote in glowing terms this week of a player who is poised to fulfil his dreams.It is in Spain that an arduous season, in which Andy Murray reached all four grand-slam semi-finals for the first time, reaches its climax tomorrow with the Davis Cup final against Argentina, in Seville. Sánchez will be there, but took time out to remember the indelible impression a 15-year-old from Scotland made on him — and still does.“From the start, Andy showed great companionship and humility,” Sánchez said. “If we could get him to work in a continuous manner, he would improve a lot. This was the most difficult thing, to get him used to the routines.“Sometimes we had to get him out of his room to train, other times we chased him. Since we are not born learned, he had to get used to the hardness. However, when he went to the tournaments he was able to take out the best of himself. This part is so difficult to teach; for him, it was innate.“If we analyse it today, we realise that after all these years Andy still maintains all the exceptional aspects of his game. He is very aggressive with his serve and dominates his opponents, and the more you force him, the better he defends. I am among those who defend Andy’s progression and his potential for further improvement.“Also, we have to keep in mind that he has to deal with the two best players of history, [Rafael] Nadal and [Roger] Federer, and when they have not been there and Andy had the opportunity to shine, then appears [Novak] Djokovic almost better than the best two. But he will do it, I am sure.”There are 45 days before the start of the Australian Open in Melbourne, an event in which Murray has twice reached the final. During the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, The Times caught up with the leading tennis writers of the world and asked if they believe that Murray will come to the grand-slam tournament fore and remove this monkey from the back of the British game once and for all. They offered a fascinating insight.Christopher ClareyInternational Herald Tribune, New York TimesTo say Murray will absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a Scotsman’s considerable doubt win a grand-slam tournament is more than I’m willing to express. There is no question that he should, for he has the requisite talent, the requisite body of preparatory work and even has the body after years of taking his training more seriously than he did as a junk food-loving teen.Paul Annacone, coach of all-time greats and a former LTA employee, told me recently that he would be shocked if Andy didn’t do it, but I won’t be shocked if he falls short because this is an historically brutal era, after all. But I will be surprised.Murray has beaten all his primary rivals — Djokovic, Nadal and Federer — multiple times, and in significant matches. Although it is tempting to dismiss him at this stage as a best-of-three set champion, his record in best-of-five set events is too fine and consistent for that. For now, though, he still falters against the Big Three when it counts most. His combined record outside slams against Djokovic, Nadal and Federer is 15-16. In the slams against them, it is 2-9.What he has been missing at crunch time against the game’s best is a bit of staying power, a bit of maturity, a bit of self-belief, a bit of positive energy and a bit of forehand firepower. Does he need to address all those areas to win that elusive major? No, he could win the Australian Open without changing a thing, if the breaks go his way.Leo SchlinkHerald Sun, MelbourneThe Australian Open is the perfect environment in many ways because he’s not in front of his home crowd, or in Europe. For him to win, it’s as simple as him believing in himself more, in the way the top three do.“As soon as he wins that first set in a final, it will be a huge breakthrough. If he gets in that situation again, Murray can’t walk off the court without mentally having been absolutely positive. We saw him looking at the box in the final this year and telling them to calm down, but we needed to see more aggression from him.Perhaps, that is the way he is. I hope I’m not accused of being patriotic, but I’d love to see Darren Cahill or Roger Rasheed coach Andy full time. They are people who can get under his skin and get the absolute best out of him. Darren would be perfect: he understands the game, thinks about it, he studies his man and he knows what makes him work, and what doesn’t work, and tries to create the perfect environment. Roger has learnt a lot from him. With either of those working with him, I would be amazed if it did not translate to grand-slam success.Juan José MateoEl País, SpainHe has all the tools to win and it was impressive to see him make four grand-slam semi-finals this year. He can win on any surface, but the faster, the better for him. It’s down to belief, nothing else.This year at Wimbledon, he had Rafa totally under control, missed a shot long and it all went wrong, and I think it is a matter of holding things together after not getting what you want. He can’t do the same thing again if he does not win Australia for a third year and goes for two or three tournaments without playing his best.The percentage of his first serve is definitely among the worst in the top ten, so that is something to improve, but it is not simply the percentage but the balance. He does not need to go for the huge serve on the first serve. He could mix it a little bit, the Spanish way, let us say.When he is as good as he is tactics-wise, you can’t blame the lack of results on a coach or not a coach. Federer went without a coach a long time winning and any top player will tell you that once you are on court, there’s nothing a coach can do. He reads the game pretty well, so I don’t think that would be a difference.Everything is in himself. It is a matter of dedication, [being] willing to put in the effort and staying mentally tough, and being able to accept defeats and victories.René StaufferTages-Anzeiger, SwitzerlandHe is still young, with huge experience, a very good mentality. Everything he has to face, the historic stuff, the expectations, he handles well. I know he didn’t get one set yet in finals, but look who he played — unbelievably tough opponents.The time will come when there will not be a Federer, a Djokovic in the best form of his life or a Nadal as he has been before. Soon Murray will be one of those who will be left and with all the luck of the moment you need, he can surely win a grand slam without playing one of the toughest guys around.In Australia this year, he was disappointing, but there will be times when the set-up is better. I remember when Peter Lundgren was working with Roger. He said it is like ketchup: first nothing, and then it could come out more than you imagine. Roger lost against Mario Ancic and Luis Horna in Paris early in his career, he had a terrible run in grand-slams, and then it all happened for him; like the bottle plopped and then you couldn’t account for what he did.It is not the game with Murray, it is in the head. This year, it was astonishing what happened after he lost in Australia, and a bit alarming for me. He should have got over that much easier.Cécile SolerLe Figaro, FranceThere is so much competition, but next year could be rather interesting and full of opportunities because I would be very surprised if Djokovic is as good. Nadal sounds burnt out in the head, even though he is a tremendous champion. Björn Borg retired at 26, remember. Maybe Nadal will come back, maybe not. I don’t think that [Ivan] Lendl, for all he achieved, had as much talent as Andy and it took him four times before he won his first slam final.Murray does not play with enough offence for me. I agree with Federer when he says that in the grand-slam finals, you have to go and get them, not wait for the opponent to fail to produce the right tennis. I remember Arnaud Clément being stunned by [Andre] Agassi in the final of the 2001 Australian Open because he had played him before and beaten him in a slam, but in the final, his impression was it was just not the same player.As for a coach, Roger has been without one, Jo [Tsonga] is proving it can be done, but I think Andy has to change something in his coaching situation, and he should aim for the big ones.Gianni ClericiLa Repubblica, ItalyWhen you don’t know an actor, it is difficult to know what sort of a person he is. I look at the colour of his eyes, but I have not been so close to Murray.Why cannot he win? I don’t think he has a complex. I should speak to his psychiatrist. If I knew what he would confess, the truth, the problem is a personal problem because if he thinks he can in a slam, he wins; if he doesn’t, he doesn’t. I’m afraid it is as simple as that.A very complete game and player, perhaps he is too much a Spaniard to be an Englishman — I am sorry, a Scotsman. I don’t think it is the game that prevents him; something else, it has to be

Ivan Lendl will make himself available for one round-table discussion later this week to talk about what lured him back to tennis full time. Then, as best he can, he will retreat from the debate and let Andy Murray do all the talking.

The former world No 1 does not want the fascination surrounding his return as Murray’s coach to overshadow the job he wants to do with the British No 1, the subtleties of which will hopefully become apparent in the next few months.

At the end of the Brisbane International, at which he spent just over 48 hours, Lendl disappeared as quickly as he could to the airport with Marika, his eldest daughter with whom he had travelled from his home in the United States. He had to have his arm twisted to say anything. “I thought Andy was great today,” the coach said. “He fought for every point, it could not have been much better, and I thought that his composure was fantastic.”

The final comment was the nugget. If Lendl’s appearance in Murray’s corner has one defining impact, it has to be that, on the court, the player stops wasting the precious energy that has cost him dear in previous big matches. If he can sustain, during the Australian Open, the focus that he brought to his past three matches in Queensland, Lendl’s recruitment will have been worth every nickel.

Not once did he utter a comment to his corner, where Lendl has joined Dani Vallverdu, Murray’s long-time friend and hitting partner. Not once did he give them a stare, or show his feelings. And he did not drop a set in that time.

On Friday, he will play a final pre-Open match at the AAMI Classic in Kooyong, against David Nalbandian, of Argentina; the same day we will learn who stands between him and the Open glory he so desperately seeks

I hope both fans and non-fans don't read too much into his demeanor last week especially after Lendl's arrival. Typically Andy doesn't make too much fuss on court when he's feeling very confident. It only shows when he's unable to execute his plan accordingly which generally happens in big matches or when he's in a slump. The Lendl affect will take some time and Andy's not going to change overnight all that dramatically. It's a behavioural pattern that takes time to correct itself once you start working on it. Andy will probably stay quiet at first but expect him to lose it a bit at times – even when Lendl is present.

Craig, the Margaret Court article probably belongs in the other section - probably best to put it under Tennis News. Just a suggestion since this section is more about Andy. Am glad you posted it though.

So what's your thought on this anyway? Anyone?

How does one get to 'choose' to be gay? While I feel she's entitled to her opinion, I’d like her to explain that.

Craig, the Margaret Court article probably belongs in the other section - probably best to put it under Tennis News. Just a suggestion since this section is more about Andy. Am glad you posted it though.

So what's your thought on this anyway? Anyone?

How does one get to 'choose' to be gay? While I feel she's entitled to her opinion, I’d like her to explain that.

Rubbish. Are you gay? Did you choose it? Keep in mind - what you think as one person is not the definite answer. In any case, science dose not agree with you.

Let's say you are not a killer and I am sure you aren't but for the argument's sake, can you choose to be a killer if it's not in you? There are some circumstantial killings but it starts and ends with one incident. It's not like as if you then go on to killing afterwards or become a serial killer. If it’s not in you, then you are not going to ‘choose’ it. There are some things beyond our choosing and control - and homosexuality is one of them.

You can ‘choose’ it for one time or maybe two times for fun or for trying different things out, but you can definitely not choose it for life. In no time you will get back to your normal state – whatever it is – gay or straight...or other stuff.

I got a link to that article via Bleacher Report, who clearly dont like Andy. They always have headlines with very provocative = negative titles and very little objectivety.Always wise to read the original article to get the true facts, if we can ever believe anything printed in the media!

The Bleacher Report Tennis is a site that is dominated by Fed Fans, their 'expert' writers are usually just Fed fanboys/girls and are backed up by other Fed fans and so on. They're no more tennis experts/journalists than anybody else. If you are looking for any kind of objectivity there you shall be looking for a long time